ORDER Challenging the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.6254 of 2015 in O.S.No.586 of 2015 on the file of the V Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, the defendants have filed the above Civil Revision Petition. 2. The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.586 of 2015 for permanent injunction and for mandatory injunction. The suit was filed on 30.01.2015. In the said suit, the plaintiff filed an application in I.A.No.1505 of 2015 under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the Civil Procedure Code praying for interim injunction. The defendants filed their counter wherein they have stated that no injunction can be granted restraining the defendants from interfering with the alleged possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff, since the defendants are in possession as lawful tenants/lessees under a registered Lease Deed dated 28.10.2011 entered into between the predecessor in title of the plaintiff and the predecessor in title of the defendants-Corporation. In the injunction application, the plaintiff produced the Encumbrance Certificate for the period from 01.01.1987 to 26.09.2011. On a perusal of the Encumbrance Certificate, it is clear that there is no entry has been made with regard to the registered Lease Deed dated 28.10.2011, however, the defendants produced an Encumbrance Certificate from 01.02.1987 to 16.02.2015 wherein the Lease Deed dated 14.07.1999 executed by one Muthukumarasamy in favour of the defendants finds a place. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an application in I.A.No.6254 of 2015 under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code to amend the plaint by incorporating the averments with regard to the registered Lease Deed. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the plaintiff has stated that he was unaware of the execution of the Lease Deed and that he came to know about the Lease Agreement only from the counter filed by the defendants and the Encumbrance Certificate produced by them. The defendants filed their counter stating that the plaintiff had previous knowledge about the execution of the Lease Agreement and therefore, the proposed amendment seeking to substitute a new cause of action cannot be allowed. The amendment application in I.A.No.6254 of 2015 was filed by the plaintiff on 07.04.2015. Admittedly, it is a pre-trial amendment. The trial Court, taking into consideration the case of both parties, allowed the application. Aggrieved over the same, the defendants have filed the above Civil Revision Petition. 3. The amendment application in I.A.No.6254 of 2015 was filed by the plaintiff on 07.04.2015. Admittedly, it is a pre-trial amendment. The trial Court, taking into consideration the case of both parties, allowed the application. Aggrieved over the same, the defendants have filed the above Civil Revision Petition. 3. Heard Mr.O.R.Santhanakrishnan, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.V.Lakshminarayanan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 4. Mr.O.R.Santhakrishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court should not have allowed the application for amendment when the plaintiff had previous knowledge about the Lease Agreement. That apart, the learned counsel also submitted that the proposed amendment would alter the character of the suit, which would prejudice the defendants. 5. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the following judgment: (i) (2000) 1 Supreme Court Cases 712 [B.K.Narayana Pillai Vs. Parameswaran Pillai and another] wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that no amendment should be allowed which amounts to or relates in defeating the legal right accruing to the opposite party on account of lapse of time. (ii) (2002) 1 MLJ 758 [M.S.Karuppusami Vs. Saravana Devei alias Vasanthamani and others] wherein this Court held that under the guise of amendment a new cause of action or a new case cannot be substituted. (iii) (2005) 3 MLJ 577 [Chinnakkal Vs. Marakkal and others] wherein this Court held that when the plaintiff is guilty of filing repeated amendment applications, a Court, normally, would not entertain such application. 6. Countering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.V.Lakshminarayanan, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the amendment being a pre-trial amendment, the trial Court has rightly allowed the application. Further, the learned counsel submitted that since the plaintiff was not aware of the execution of the Lease Agreement dated 28.10.2011, which is also supported by the Encumbrance Certificate produced by him, the trial Court rightly found that the plaintiff was not aware of the Lease Agreement and allowed the application. The learned counsel also submitted that for the mistake committed by the Registration Department in issuing the Encumbrance Certificate without the entry with regard to the Lease Agreement, the plaintiff cannot be penalised. Further, the learned counsel also submitted that by way of the proposed amendment, the character of the suit will not change. 7. The learned counsel also submitted that for the mistake committed by the Registration Department in issuing the Encumbrance Certificate without the entry with regard to the Lease Agreement, the plaintiff cannot be penalised. Further, the learned counsel also submitted that by way of the proposed amendment, the character of the suit will not change. 7. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the following judgments: (i) (2012) 5 Supreme Court Cases 337 [Rameshkumar Agarwal Vs. Rajmala Exports Private Limited and others] wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: "20. In Revajeetu Builders & Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons [ (2009) 10 SCC 84 : (2009) 4 SCC (Civ) 37], this Court once again considered the scope of amendment of pleadings. In para 63, it concluded as follows: "Factors to be taken into consideration while dealing with applications for amendments 63. On critically analysing both the English and Indian Cases, some basic principles emerge which ought to be taken into consideration while allowing or rejecting the application for amendment: (1) whether the amendment sought is imperative for proper and effective adjudication of the case; (2) whether the application for amendment is bona fide or mala fide; (3) the amendment should not cause such prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money; (4) refusing amendment would in fact lead to injustice or lead to multiple litigation; (5) whether the proposed amendment constitutionally or fundamentally changes the nature and character of the case; and (6) as a general rule, the Court should decline amendments if a fresh suit on the amended claims would be barred by limitation on the date of application. These are some of the important facts which may be kept in mind while dealing with application filed under Order 6 Rule 17. These are only illustrative and not exhaustive." 21.It is clear that while deciding the application for amendment ordinarily the Court must not refuse bona fide, legitimate, honest and necessary amendments and should never permit mala fide and dishonest amendments. The purpose and object of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code is to allow neither party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just. The purpose and object of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code is to allow neither party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just. Amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and under all circumstances, but the courts while deciding such prayers should not adopt a hyper technical approach. Liberal approach should be the general rule, particularly in cases where the other side can be compensated with costs. Normally, amendments are allowed in the pleadings to avoid multiplicity of litigations." (ii) an un-reported judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court made in Civil Appeal No.1323 of 2015 dated 30.01.2015 wherein the Apex Court held as follows: "9. The main reason assigned by the trial Court for rejection of the amendment application was that upon enhancement of the valuation of the suit property, the suit was to be transferred to the High Court on its original side. In our view, that is not a reason for which the amendment application should have been rejected. With regard to amendment of plaint, the following observation has been made by this Court in the case of North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur V. Bhagwan Das (D) by LRs. (2008) 8 SCC 511 : "16. Insofar as the principles which govern the question of granting or disallowing amendments under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. (as it stood at the relevant time) are concerned, these are also well settled. Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. postulates amendment of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings. In Pirgonda Hongonda Patil V. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil and others (1957) 1 SCR 595 which still holds the filed, it was held that all amendments ought to be allowed which satisfy the two conditions: (a) of not working injustice to the other side; and (b) of being necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. Amendments should be refused only where the other party cannot be placed in the same position as if the pleading had been originally correct, but the amendment would cause him an injury which could not be compensated in costs." 10. Amendments should be refused only where the other party cannot be placed in the same position as if the pleading had been originally correct, but the amendment would cause him an injury which could not be compensated in costs." 10. In our opinion, on the basis of the aforestated legal position, the amendment application made by the plaintiff should have been granted, especially in view of the fact that it was admitted by the plaintiff that the suit property was initially undervalued in the plaint and by virtue of the amendment application, the plaintiff wanted to correct the error and wanted to place correct market value of the suit property in the plaint." (iii) AIR 2001 Supreme Court 699 [Ragu Thilak D.John Vs. S.Rayappan and others] wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: "The purpose and object of Order 6, Rule 17, C.P.C. is to allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as a may be just. The power to allow the amendment is wide and can be exercised at any stage of the proceedings in the interests of justice on the basis of guidelines laid down by various High Courts and this Court. It is true that the amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and under all circumstances. But it is equally true that the Courts while deciding such prayers should not adopt hyper technical approach. Liberal approach should be the general rule particularly in cases where the other side can be compensated with the costs. Technicalities of law should not be permitted to hamper the Courts in the administration of justice between the parties. Amendments are allowed in the pleadings to avoid uncalled for multiplicity of litigation." (iv) (2012) 11 Supreme Court Cases 341 [Abdul Rehman and another Vs. Mohd. Ruldu and others] wherein the Apex Court held as follows: "Before considering the factual details and the materials placed by the appellants praying for amendment of their plaint, it is useful to refer Order 6 Rule 17 which is as under: "17. Mohd. Ruldu and others] wherein the Apex Court held as follows: "Before considering the factual details and the materials placed by the appellants praying for amendment of their plaint, it is useful to refer Order 6 Rule 17 which is as under: "17. Amendment of pleadings - The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleading in such manner and on such terms as may be just and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties: Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial." It is clear that parties to the suit are permitted to bring forward amendment of their pleadings at any stage of the proceeding for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between them. The Courts have to be liberal in accepting the same, if the same is made prior to the commencement of the trial. If such application is made after the commencement of the trial, in that event, the Court has to arrive at a conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial." 8. On a careful consideration of the materials available on record and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel on either side, it is not in dispute that the proposed amendment sought for by the plaintiff is a pre-trial amendment. According to the plaintiff, he was not aware of the execution of the registered Lease Agreement entered into between the defendants and his predecessor in title. In support of his contention, the plaintiff produced the Encumbrance Certificate for the period between 01.01.1987 and 26.09.2011. On a perusal of the Encumbrance Certificate which has been enclosed in the typed set of papers, entry with regard to the Lease Agreement does not find place, however, in the Encumbrance Certificate produced by the defendants for the period between 01.02.1987 and 16.02.2015, there is an entry with regard to the Lease Agreement dated 14.7.1999 between one Muthukumarasamy and the defendants. When the plaintiff was not a party to the Lease Agreement and also in the absence of any entry to that effect in the Encumbrance Certificate, the plaintiff had no occasion to know about the Lease Agreement. In the counter filed in I.A.No.1505 of 2015, the defendants have stated about the existence of the Lease Agreement dated 28.10.2011. The suit was filed on 30.01.2015 and the plaintiff filed the petition in I.A.No.6254 of 2015 under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code seeking for amendment of the plaint on 07.04.2015. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the plaintiff had filed the application at a belated stage. At the earliest point of time, the plaintiff has filed the application seeking for amendment. 9. The learned counsel on either side submitted that even the issues were not framed in the suit. Within three months from the date of filing of the suit, the present application has been filed by the plaintiff seeking for amendment of the plaint. 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent, held that the Courts have to be liberal in permitting the amendment of the pleadings if the same is made prior to the commencement of the trial and also the Apex Court held that if such application is filed after the commencement of the trial, in that event, the Court has to arrive at a conclusion in spite of the due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial. 11. In the case on hand, as already stated, the plaintiff has filed the application within three months from the date of filing of the suit. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the plaintiff was not diligent in filing the application. 12. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent squarely applies to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 13. On the contrary, since the facts and circumstances differs, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners are not applicable to the case on hand. 14. The trial Court, taking into consideration that the application was filed at the earliest point of time, rightly allowed the application. 13. On the contrary, since the facts and circumstances differs, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners are not applicable to the case on hand. 14. The trial Court, taking into consideration that the application was filed at the earliest point of time, rightly allowed the application. Since the amendment sought for is at pre-trial stage, it is always open to the defendants to contest the suit, on merits and in accordance with law. 15. In these circumstances, I do not find any error or irregularity in the order passed by the trial Court. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.